Survey of National Surgical Site Infection Surveillance Programs in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Background: Surgical site infection (SSI) surveillance programs are strongly recommended as a core component of effective national infection prevention and control (IPC) programs. Participation in national SSI surveillance (nSSIS) programs has been shown to decrease reported SSIs among high-income countries (HICs), and it is expected that the same is possible among low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We sought to determine what, if any nSSIS programs exist among LMICs. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was performed to evaluate existence of nSSIS of World Bank-defined LMICs. A digital survey assessment for presence of national IPC and nSSIS programs was delivered to persons capable of identifying the presence of such a program. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained for this study. Results: Of the 137 countries identified, 55 (40%) were upper middle income (UMI), 47 (34%) were lower middle income (LMI), and 34 (25%) were low income. Representatives from 39 (28%) LMICs completed the survey. Of these respondent countries, 13 (33%) reported the presence of a national IPC program. There was no difference between countries with IPC programs and those without with respect to country income designation, population size, World Health Organization region, or conflict status. Only five (13% of all respondents) reported presence of a nSSIS program. Conclusions: National surgical site infection surveillance programs are an integral component of a country's ability to provide safe surgical procedures. Presence of nSSIS was reported infrequently in LMICs. International governing bodies should be encouraged to guide LMIC leadership in establishing a nSSIS infrastructure that will help enable safe surgical procedures.

Investigating Clinical and Cost Burdens of Law Enforcement-Related K9 Injuries: The Impact of "the Bite" on a Community Hospital.

The decision to introduce canines (K9s) to a law enforcement (LE) agency does not typically involve the evaluation of the fiscal or clinical impact on local hospitals. This study compared injury, cost, and care associated with K9s to a common nonlethal force method, the Thomas A Swift Electrical Rifle (TASER), to highlight the cost and resources required to treat both patient types. Patients treated for LE-related K9 and TASER injuries at a Level I community-based trauma center (2011-2016) were evaluated for level of care required (e.g., surgeon/specialist), clinical interventions, proxy medical costs, and length of stay (LOS). Nearly one-third of K9 patients required tertiary-level medical care. The cost of treating the K9-inflicted injuries (n = 75) was almost twice as costly as care for patients subdued with a TASER (n = 80); the K9 patients had significantly (one-tailed t tests) higher medical costs (P = 0.036), required more medical procedures (P = 0.014), and had longer LOS (P = 0.0046) than the TASER patients. Patients with K9 injuries had higher acuity and were significantly more expensive to treat with longer LOS than TASER injuries. LE agencies considering establishing and operating a K9 unit should initiate discussions with their local medical first responders and health-care facilities regarding the capabilities to treat severe K9 injuries to ensure adequate resource allocation.

Eligibility of Outpatient Spine Surgery Candidates in a Single Private Practice.

STUDY DESIGN: Level III. PURPOSE: To retrospectively review the eligibility of surgical patients meeting predetermined outpatient surgery criteria in a single-surgeon private practice. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is a burgeoning awareness among patients, surgeons, and insurers of the cost benefits and safety of outpatient spine surgeries. At the end of 2014, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have released its final 2015 payment rules and codes for spinal decompression and fusion. This move confirms the safety of procedures being performed in the ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). METHODS: We conducted a database review between 2008 and 2014 and identified 1625 orthopedic procedures. All nonsurgical spine procedures were excluded from the study. Eligibility for outpatient spine surgery was based on criteria generated from a combination of published standard of care for major operations and the chief surgeon's experience. A matched cohort based on type of surgery in each facility of all spine surgery patients was created, group 1 (hospital patients) and group 2 (ASC patients). RESULTS: A total of 708 patients underwent spinal surgery during this time period with a 53% female population. A total of 557 of 708 (79%) patients were eligible for outpatient spine surgery. There were 210 surgical procedures in group 1 (inpatient) comprised of 72 decompression and 138 fusion procedures. In group 2 (outpatient), there were 347 procedures made up of 150 patients undergoing decompression and 197 undergoing fusion or disc replacement. To confirm that hospital procedures are eligible to be performed in the ASC, the χ test was performed. We found that ASC-eligible hospital patients can indeed be done in an ASC (P=0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient spine surgery is feasible in 79% of patients in this single-surgeon private practice. On the basis of these results, a majority of spine procedures can be performed in an outpatient setting following our eligibility criteria.

Clinical Outcomes With Midline Cortical Bone Trajectory Pedicle Screws Versus Traditional Pedicle Screws in Moving Lumbar Fusions From Hospitals to Outpatient Surgery Centers.

STUDY DESIGN: Level III. OBJECTIVE: To report on the outcomes of midline cortical bone trajectory (CBT) pedicle screw surgical technique for posterior lumbar fixation in the outpatient surgery center (OSC) compared with traditional pedicle screws in the hospital. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Traditional pedicle screws have been the gold standard for posterior lumbar fusion. Advances in spine surgery, including less invasive procedures have propelled the design of instruments and implants to achieve greater posterior spinal fixation, with decreased tissue destruction and higher safety margins. Biomechanical studies have validated the superior pullout strength of cortical screws versus the traditional pedicle screws and represent an opportunity to perform safe lumbar fusions in OSCs with same day discharge. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The medical records of 60 patients with prospectively collected data were reviewed. Two matched cohort groups consisting of 30 patients each, CBT pedicle screws performed in OSC patients (group 1) was compared with traditional pedicle screws performed in hospital patients (group 2). Outcomes were assessed with self-reported Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry Disability Index scores, and radiologic fusion rate. RESULTS: Totally, 33 males and 27 females, age range (28-75), average 58±3 years. Average body mass index was 29±1.15 kg/m. A total of 65% of surgeries were at L5-S1 level. Significant improvement noted in VAS back pain scores in the OSC group from 7.8±0.5 to 2.5±0.7, P=0.001. Comparing intergroup VAS back pain scores and Oswestry Disability Index scores, OSC group demonstrated significant improvement, P=0.004 and 0.027, respectively. Fusion rate at 2 years was similar, P=0.855 between groups. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully transitioned our lumbar fusions from hospitals to OSCs using a midline CBT pedicle screw technique. Although traditional pedicle screw placement is effective and may be viable in an OSC, we see more advantages to use midline cortical screws over traditional pedicle screws.

Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Ambulatory Surgery Centers: Patient Selection and Outcome Measures Compared With an Inhospital Cohort.

STUDY DESIGN: Comparative analysis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and outcomes of moving lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) surgeries to an outpatient setting. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: LLIF has been popularized as a less invasive lumbar fusion surgery as an alternative approach to anterior lumbar interbody fusions, posterior lateral interbody fusion, and transforaminal lateral interbody fusion (TLIF). Lumbar fusions have been traditionally performed in a hospital setting because of the potential blood loss, length of surgery, and need for longer recovery. There is a movement to transition spine surgeries to outpatient settings with many benefits afforded by less invasive techniques and technologies. METHODS: The medical records of 70 consecutive patients with prospectively collected data were retrospectively reviewed. Two cohort groups, inpatients (40 patients) and outpatients (30 patients), were created. Patient demographics, risk factors, and body mass index (BMI) were evaluated to determine inclusion criteria for study. RESULT: A total of 34 males and 36 females, age range (31-71) average 59.3 ±â€Š2.3 years. Average BMI was 29.6 ±â€Š1.1 kg/m. The most common level operated on being L3-L4 in both groups (63%). Mean preoperative inpatient Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) increased from 48.5 ±â€Š3.0 to 55.5 ±â€Š3.2 compared with outpatient preoperative ODI means reduced from 45.2 ±â€Š5.1 to 39.1 ±â€Š4.6. There was no statistically significant change in VAS scores between groups. There was however significant improvement in outpatient preoperative VAS scores from 7.3 ±â€Š0.5 to 4.1 ±â€Š0.5, P = 0.045. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of the present study have shown that patients who had LLIF performed in the outpatient setting had statistically significant improvement in ODI scores compared with the inpatient setting (P = 0.013). Fusion was achieved in all patients and there was no evidence of implant failure or subsidence. Complications were transient in both settings. We conclude that outpatient LLIF improves patients' outcomes with similar safety profile as the hospital setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Feasibility and patient-reported outcomes after outpatient single-level instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion in a surgery center: preliminary results in 16 patients.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: To report surgical and patient-reported outcomes after outpatient lumbar fusions in an ambulatory setting. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is growing interest in the potential benefits of outpatient spine surgery such as reduced costs, consistent operative team, and decreased postoperative complications during in-hospital recovery. However, there are limited studies on outcomes after outpatient lumbar fusions, to guide patient selection, treatment techniques and postoperative expectations. METHODS: Medical records of 16 consecutive patients, who underwent outpatient direct open, single-level, posterior lumbar interbody fusions, were examined by a single surgeon. Outcome measures included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for lower back and Oswestry Disability Indices (ODIs). Mean body mass indices (BMIs), estimated blood loss, surgical times and complications, and fusion rates were evaluated. RESULTS: Males represented 56% of patients. Mean age was 42.81 ± 3.05 years (mean ± standard error) and mean body mass index was 28.95 ± 1.04. History of smoking and narcotics use were statistically noncontributory. Mean final follow-up was 15 (range, 5.52-34.2 mo) months. Mean postoperative scores were determined by the final follow-up VAS and ODI. L5-S1 was the most common level of the 16 levels operated on (69%). Preoperative and postoperative VAS and ODI scores for lower back were obtained for 15 patients (93.75%). Mean lower back VAS score of 8.4 ± 0.37 preoperatively reduced to 4.96 ± 0.73 postoperatively, (P = 0.001). Mean ODI improved from 52.71 ± 0.04 preoperatively, to 37.43 ± 0.06 postoperatively, (P = 0.04). One patient experienced postoperative worsened back pain with clinical and radiological signs of possible aseptic discitis. Estimated blood loss was 161 ± 32 mL and average operating time was 124.85 ± 7.10 minutes. The overall fusion rate was 87.5%. CONCLUSION: Direct open posterior lumbar interbody fusions were done safely with statistically significant reduction in average pain and ODI scores. Surgical times were approximately 2 hours with minimal blood loss, allowing patients to be comfortably discharged the same day without a drain.